OMDDMS® · Version 4.1.2

The Five Failure Modes

The same five failure modes recur across operating model transformations regardless of sector, regulator, or programme size. OMDDMS® names them precisely and gives organisations, practitioners, and oversight bodies a repeatable discipline for addressing all five.

5Failure modes
4OMDDM phases where they are addressed
Cross-sectorNot specific to any industry
Evidence-basedDrawn from documented failures
Diagnostic

A diagnostic, not a list of symptoms

Operating model transformation fails in ways that look different on the surface (an IT delay here, a governance dispute there, a training budget overrun somewhere else) but trace back to a small number of structural causes. The five failure modes below are those causes, not their symptoms.

Why five, and why these five

The five failure modes are drawn from documented cross-sector transformation failures and operational resilience findings, not from a single organisation's experience. Each maps directly onto a gap in the Operating Model Design and Delivery Method (OMDDM) that OMDDMS® was built to close.

The Standard

The five failure modes

Each failure mode shows what the OMDDM requires, set against what typically happens without it, with the phase of the method where OMDDMS® addresses it directly.

An afterthought, not the foundation

The operating model is designed after the programme's solution is chosen, when it should be the foundation the solution is designed to fit, enabling the strategy rather than following the technology. Treating the model as something a programme produces at the end, rather than the foundation it builds on from the start, is the most common failure mode observed across sectors.

With OMDDMS®Scope resolves the operating model questions before a solution is designed.
Without OMDDMS®The operating model is designed after the programme's solution, not before it.
Addressed in: Scope

Built for accountability, not for decisions

Governance specifies who sits on which board and who signs off, but rarely who holds the authority to decide and act when that authority is contested. A board that meets regularly is not the same as a board that can resolve a live disagreement about direction.

With OMDDMS®Govern defines nine areas of decision-making authority, not just reporting.
Without OMDDMS®Governance tells you who is in the room, not what they can decide.
Addressed in: Govern

Capability treated as a training problem

Structural gaps in judgement, authority, or working relationships between functions are not closed by a training course, however well it is delivered. Capability is a property of how roles, decision rights, and services are designed to interact, not of individual skill alone.

With OMDDMS®Capability is assessed and sequenced into Design and Transition.
Without OMDDMS®Capability gaps are treated as a training problem.
Addressed in: Design and Transition

Transition run as a communications exercise

Telling people what is changing is not the same as designing how the organisation operates while the current and target models run side by side. The period of dual running is where most operational risk in a transformation concentrates, and it needs a design, not a briefing pack.

With OMDDMS®Transition manages the period when current and target models run together.
Without OMDDMS®Transition is run as a communications exercise.
Addressed in: Transition

Declared complete at go-live

Without a named owner and an ongoing governance function, the model is modified informally and inconsistently until it no longer resembles what was designed. Go-live is a milestone in delivering the model, not the end of managing it.

With OMDDMS®Govern gives the model a named owner after go-live.
Without OMDDMS®The model is declared complete at go-live, then drifts unmanaged.
Addressed in: Govern
Evidence

Grounded in evidence

The five failure modes are drawn from published operational resilience data and documented technology and change failures in regulated sectors.

Operational resilience

Informed by UK operational resilience requirements, including FCA Policy Statement PS21/3 and PRA Supervisory Statement SS1/21 (2021).

Change and technology failure

Informed by documented banking technology and change failures, including the 2019 independent review of the 2018 TSB IT migration.

Cross-sector case studies

Tested against operating model programmes across government, retail, and infrastructure.

Seen across sectors: practitioners trained from organisations including

  • National and devolved government
  • Local government
  • Defence
  • Global retail
  • Motoring associations
  • Management consultancy

Across the UK, Europe, North America and Australia

In practice

What this means in practice

The five failure modes are the reason OMDDMS® is structured the way it is, not five separate problems to be solved with five separate initiatives.

For organisations

A single structure to design, deliver, and govern operating model change against, instead of eight disciplines each working to a different definition of success.

For practitioners

A diagnostic to apply to any programme, and a discipline that transfers between sectors even where the regulatory context does not.

For boards and regulators

A small number of concrete questions to ask a transformation partner before budget is committed, with a defensible basis for assurance reporting afterwards.

Common questions

Frequently asked questions about the five failure modes

Questions about what the five failure modes are, where they come from, and how OMDDMS® addresses them.

01What are the five failure modes in operating model transformation?

The five failure modes are:

  • the operating model is an afterthought, not the foundation
  • governance is built for accountability, not for decisions
  • capability is treated as a training problem
  • transition is run as a communications exercise
  • the model is declared complete at go-live

They recur across sectors regardless of industry, regulator, or programme size.

02Where do the five failure modes come from?

They are drawn from documented cross-sector transformation failures and operational resilience findings, not from a single organisation's experience. Sources considered include UK operational resilience requirements (FCA PS21/3 and PRA SS1/21) and the 2019 independent review of the 2018 TSB IT migration.

03Which OMDDM phase addresses each failure mode?
  • An afterthought, not the foundation: Scope.
  • Built for accountability, not for decisions: Govern.
  • Capability treated as a training problem: Design and Transition.
  • Transition run as a communications exercise: Transition.
  • Declared complete at go-live: Govern.
04What is the most common failure mode?

Treating the operating model as an afterthought rather than the foundation. The model is designed after the programme's solution has been chosen, when it should be the foundation the solution is designed to fit. OMDDMS® addresses this in the Scope phase, before a solution is designed.

05Are the five failure modes specific to one sector?

No. They appear in different forms across financial services, government, healthcare, defence, retail, and other sectors. The regulatory context changes between sectors, but the structural causes do not.

06How can I tell whether a programme is at risk?

Three questions are a reliable early test:

  • Who will design the target operating model?
  • How will decision rights be made clear after transformation?
  • Who maintains the model after go-live?

Vague answers to any of the three point to one or more of the five failure modes.

See how the Standard addresses each one

Follow each failure mode into the seven phases of the method, read the benefits by audience, or find an ATO to get certified.